Lucy Letby Case #10

[Tofino]

This is just so chilling. I feel physically sick at this sequence of events so far.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Trigger warning - rape.

I was just thinking how inappropriate it would be and how much of an uproar if police officers working sexual assault cases discussed details of their victims or perps by whatsapp with mates/others....

"Awful tonight mate, white female 14 was raped and beaten by 5 guys. She was small, only 96 lbs. Parents sat with her in the hospital, persuaded them to get x-rays done too but they just wanted to take her home."

Would people really be ok with this? Wouldn't it seem like someone was using your tragedy as a topic of conversation in the most casual communication message there is - also feel a bit like a betrayal that intimate parts of your life are being broadcast so widely to people not connected to your case?

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

Just to add im sorry if my posts are a little jumbled or incorrect spelling I am extremely dyslexic ( bastard that chose the spelling of that word ) cant always articulate my self here x

 

[Emmelina Ball]

People questioning the occurrence of the rash on child A and why it wasn’t noted down by the doctor, or why the nurse only is now mentioning it and not in her previous statement etc etc. A poster shared this in the last thread - sorry can’t remember who it was (I think it got missed among all the debating, but feel it’s a really valid point)

Police interviews (child a)


When interviewed by police regarding the circumstances over Child A's death, Letby said she had given fluids to Child A at the time of the change of shifts. She said within "maybe" five minutes, Child A developed 'almost a rash appearance, like a blotchy red marks on the skin'. She said she had wondered whether the bag of fluid "was not what we thought it was".

I agree with the poster, why are the defence questioning the validity of the rash and using it as part of their defence, when letby her self acknowledge it in her interview for baby A ? I think we can all assume the rash was present!

Maybe it’s they are describing it different? Blotchy red is different to purple and white I think the dr and todays nurse said?

The issue for me (not that I matter at all in this case ) isn’t that the rash may or may not have been there (I think it most likely was with so many are mentioning it) but that it wasn’t in the notes of baby A. That really should have been recorded and it paints a picture of the types of routine errors happening day in and day out on that ward. It also looked bad on the nurse today who recalled it today in court but not at the police statement 4 years ago. That sort of fits with a theme what the defence said about was she saying this because others were saying it osomething to that tune.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Just pretend for a minute she’s innocent. If so, she has gone through the traumatic experience of a baby dying on shift. Different people experience trauma in different ways, one thing that is important to recover though is to talk about how you are feeling, bottling it up causes more issues.

I’ve worked with people (in a mental health setting)that want to go straight back into where the traumatic event occurred, equally some people want to avoid the people involved and the location. It all depends on how we as individuals deal with events.

I’ve not seen anything in those text messages that infer guilt or anything else sinister about LL, I guess that’s why it was ‘agreed’ evidence.

The written word is a big cause for communication errors. I’ve read those messages and thought one thing while you have seen it negatively about LL. The written word lacks tone and intention, it is asynchronous and as a result the intended message can not be checked.

But it wasn’t just her? There were others involved too, she wasn’t even the designated nurse for child B. I’m remembering her saying she couldn’t be around child B because of what happened to A and getting them to swap her with a other nurse.

She then went and attended to B anyway and no reason given why, esp since the designated nurse was there as well.

Then she suddenly wants more ITU cases and to look after C, in the span of like a few days from A and B.

It’s like she thinks she was the only one affected but complains about lack of team spirit. When she isn’t asking anyone how they’re doing or what’s best for the patients or shift leader. Does team spirit not involve her being as supportive of others? Esp when everyone said they were talking about it as highly unusual, upsetting etc.

If there were messages of her asking abt others or babies, the defence would have asked for it to be included in the summary.

These messages make it even more obvious how little she cared about the babies and understanding what happened to them. The doctors said how they had to consult doctors from other trust, do post mortem etc to figure out what happened. It was a big deal. Yet her focus is only on herself. A dedicated nurse means being dedicated to your patients.

I feel she was a drama vampire - feeding off upset and attention.

 

[avabella]

Just caught up today after a busy couple of days. It all seems very overwhelming and I think I have really had the babies on my mind a lot, there's really such tragedy at the heart of this case.

I see that Dr Evans has some questionable background but I haven't looked into that too much. It was interesting to see that Dr Bohin disagreed with something he had found/mentioned in his reports. I wonder what that was.

I did feel it was sad to see that the episodes of lack of fluids were not deemed as sub optimal by Dr Bohin.

Really feeling for the parents today.

I am still in the unsure camp. There seems to be something holding me back and I can't put my finger on it. Maybe a combination of things.

Hope everyone is well, I know this can be triggering and bring up negative memories

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Just pretend for a minute she’s innocent. If so, she has gone through the traumatic experience of a baby dying on shift. Different people experience trauma in different ways, one thing that is important to recover though is to talk about how you are feeling, bottling it up causes more issues.

I’ve worked with people (in a mental health setting)that want to go straight back into where the traumatic event occurred, equally some people want to avoid the people involved and the location. It all depends on how we as individuals deal with events.

I’ve not seen anything in those text messages that infer guilt or anything else sinister about LL, I guess that’s why it was ‘agreed’ evidence.

The written word is a big cause for communication errors. I’ve read those messages and thought one thing while you have seen it negatively about LL. The written word lacks tone and intention, it is asynchronous and as a result the intended message can not be checked.

I’ve pretended, I honestly have looked at it both ways. I started off, guilty, then read opposing arguments went to unsure I heard loudly others takes on the previous messages, and nodded along and thought yes perhaps! but something all along just read so, me me me about the previous messages. Then we read more messages and the picture keeps building, and they support (to me) my previous view point. I’m open minded I really am but the evidence over the last two days has put me back into the guilty camp. Still willing to see what else emerges but right now I can’t view it differently than I do.

 

[Tofino]

To be honest I’d think I may remember this as I think it replay what happened before the death to see if there as anything different I could’ve done. And I feel after especially after so many the parents reaction may not be as memorable, obviously sad, at the time horrible and probably still memorable but maybe not remembering which baby the parents were. Like maybe I’d remember a dad saying about not taking his baby away but not remember the specific baby after a long time?

The argument that there were (sadly) so many parents and babies that it could be hard to recall specifics of which baby and which family is valid. But that argument would apply to events leading up to it too. She was involved with at least 22 sudden unexpected collapses but she can remember specifically years later it was nurse Taylor that hung up the bag for child a. Even though she was the one that signed to say it was administered.

Its the inconsistency that’s the issue. And that the one specific detail she can remember is conveniently implicating another nurse. It’s highly suspicious.

 

[MmmB777]

I'm feeling very sad. At the moment I want her to be NG but the evidence today doesnt bode well.

I want her to be guilty! Because if she isn’t, somebody else has murdered babies and will get away with it.

 

[TwooTwooTwitTwitTwoo]

Yes I understand this- my point is merely that what he’s said about that isn’t a fact. He’s just asking people to trust him that he wasn’t looking for a crime. Some will, some won’t and will want further evidence in addition to what he’s said.

Just editing to add that unfortunately nobody is really ‘independent’ as expert witnesses as they are literally employed by whichever side they’re asked to agree with. I’m not for one minute saying they can’t be trusted or that they’re lying, just that you have to bear this in mind when listening to any expert witness whichever side they’re acting for.

Firstly some Expert Witnesses are hired by the neither prosecution or the defence. They work purely for the court and by that definition are entirely independent.

Secondly, as was covered in a previous thread, expert witness testimony instructs the court to take the evidence offered as fact. You give your expert opinion. Science doesn't lie but it can be interpreted differently. Often there will be a Statement of Agreed Facts between the two parties and then only things that fall outside of that will be questioned and on many occasions there won't actually be a huge amount of difference in the conclusions each expert has come to.

I'd also point out that some independent Expert Witnesses can be personally sued if it is found that they have presented evidence incorrectly etc so it comes with a lot of responsibility so it's not as casual as just asking people to trust him.

 

[Tofino]

Just pretend for a minute she’s innocent. If so, she has gone through the traumatic experience of a baby dying on shift. Different people experience trauma in different ways, one thing that is important to recover though is to talk about how you are feeling, bottling it up causes more issues.

I’ve worked with people (in a mental health setting)that want to go straight back into where the traumatic event occurred, equally some people want to avoid the people involved and the location. It all depends on how we as individuals deal with events.

I’ve not seen anything in those text messages that infer guilt or anything else sinister about LL, I guess that’s why it was ‘agreed’ evidence.

The written word is a big cause for communication errors. I’ve read those messages and thought one thing while you have seen it negatively about LL. The written word lacks tone and intention, it is asynchronous and as a result the intended message can not be checked.

Pretend for a moment she is guilty, do you not see anything sinister in those messages? Especially when 20 minutes later Child C collapsed?

 

[raspberryjuice]

I think we’d have heard in the opening statements if she had kept trophies like hair, hand prints etc. That would be a massive piece of evidence given what she’s accused of and would likely leave no doubt it anyone’s mind of her guilt.

This is all so heartbreaking. The poor families. When my nephew died (he went in to cardiac arrest at home, and was pronounced dead in hospital after a lot of work trying to save him) the staff were truly like angels sent from heaven. They could not have done more to support not only his mum, but the whole family. You got the impression that they were caring for him like they would have for their own live babies and it meant the world to all of us. To hear that LL could have been so cold and insensitive to parents in those final moments with their precious baby is just awful. I don’t know the right words to articulate what I mean, because I know there is nothing worse than them having their baby murdered by one of the people who are supposed to be saving their life, but it almost makes it even worse that she was so cold and heartless during those moments. They are going through what will be one of the hardest things in their life and would have needed that comfort and support around them. That she didn’t provide that is horrible. Truly horrific.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I will say there’s been families in my workplace who have been incredibly distressed and I have been distressed to see their distress and for a while they have been in my thoughts but if you asked me their names i wouldn’t remember them at all . But I still have went from hoping LL was NG to swinging to the other side now

We do know letby remembered their names though as she repeatedly searched them.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

This is such difficult reading this morning not looking good for LL.

 

[listymint]

Just for clarity I’m specifically talking about the WhatsApp messages being about her, wanting to talk about how you are feeling is a normal response to a traumatic event, even if someone else (the family) have gone through worse.

She says in the messages she wants to be in room 1 to get over the trauma.
She then says she has been into room 1 to 'do a couple of meds'

That wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to be with the really sick babies.
Let's not forget, all the babies in neonates are poorly and require some support in one way or another.
Why so persistent on the EXTREMELY vulnerable??
Makes no sense

 

[Tofino]

I also wonder if anyone thinks innocent, not just not guilty.

I put guilty again, for same reasons I wrote on last thread.

 

[Stiltoncheese]

Playing devils advocate as I feel this evidence today is quite damning so far, the defence only have to cast doubt that it was LL responsible. They don't have to prove that it wasn't accidental so they may not even try to discredit that. They just have to say that if it was intentional then whoever did kill them, it was not LL because (insert whatever evidence they have here).

It's a dangerous game though, as I feel the cases will worsen as we go through the evidence and the wider picture emerges and the jury may just be swayed to feeling it is LL in the absence of any other viable suspects. The defence will have a lot of work to try and prove negligence rather than murder if the consensus of the medical experts is that it had to be deliberate interference and they don't have a similar number of witnesses to offer an alternative view

 

[Tofino]

If you were asked by the national CRIME agency to explore a death, surely this implies that they are looking for a crime?

Is Dr Evans the same guy who is a professional witness and runs a training course to stop experts being tripped up by the defence?

He adds that in past cases, he has been brought in by police and the conclusion was accidental, so the case was closed with no further police involvement.

He’s found past cases accidental or other natural causes including some of the COCH ones. It looks like he takes it very seriously to not take a biased view when reviewing the cases. I’m not sure what else you can expect them to do?

I don’t think anyone is questioning why the defence are asking what they did, in fact in terms of giving Lucy a fair trial I think he did a good job in asking questions that needed answering, like the impact of 4hrs without fluid. I think a lot of people just felt it wasn’t enough to cast reasonable doubt into air embolus being cause of death. Maybe this will change with his own defence case.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

And unless the defence can tell us who, they don't have a hope in hell.

Witness testimony plus circumstance (LL being the constant in all cases, odds of 1 in 10 million I believe) means it HAS to have been her.

Sorry but all of the above plus 'I killed them ON PURPOSE' - anyone who still thinks she's innocent is absolutely blinded by confirmation bias.

Makes me so incandescently angry, cuddling my baby a little closer to me today.

What makes me so angry now is the reality that she did this. She consciously choose to end these babies lives for no reason other then she got a thrill from it and liked the drama.

She disgusts me and the management who turned a blind eye to what was going, who ignored staff concerns and calls for cctv disgust me too.

This isn't just a story or mindless gossip, this is real. She's an evil, twisted, pathetic fuck.

I hope there is a hell for the likes of her, I really do. I hate the fact she gets to sit through this trial because I have no doubt she enjoys reliving all the pain and distress she caused.

 

[candyland_]

The way I see it is her saying ‘It’s not about me but I’m going to go on and on about how hard it’s been for ME.’ When one colleague fobs her off she starts texting another.